The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1887-05-20
FELo DE SIC AND sfAHEM.
BY NATHAN GREEN, LII. d., cHANcEL-
LoR OF CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY,
LEBANON TENN,

LEBANON, TENN
There is a great deal of nonsense
these days about sumptuary laws.
The Romans incorporated in their
twelve tables certain provisions against
wastefulness Of prodigals and unnec-
essary expenditures at funerals. AZ
terward, in the time of the emperors,
there were laws to check extravaganza
in dress, furniture and food.
In 'he middle ages, in England and
France, there were similar laws. The
act of the British Parliament, 10 Ed
ward I'LL. went 80 tar rs to prescribe
the number of dishes for dinner and
supper, and what they should contain.
In Massachusetts, in colonial times,
the law undertook to regulate econo-
my in dress and the price of commod-
tiles, etc.
The theory and practice of modern
States, where the liberty of the citi-
zen is regarded, are very different
from what they were in ancient times.
The true idea now is for the govern
mcnt to allow the citizen all the liber-
ty in regard TO his personal comfort
and appetites and tastes compatible
with the safety and good order of the
whole community. And 1t is mani
testify unwise for the State TO descend
Al. 90 N
details of food, dress, etc. In the first
place, it would be impracticable. In
the next place, it would be discour-
aging to the citizen and destructive of
his energy, enjoyment and liberty.
These would be real sumptuary laws.
Sumptuary is from the latin sumptus,
meaning expense. - regulating ex-
penses.
On tho other hand it is a sound prin-
ciple that every State, like every indi-
vidual, may resort TO any method, de-
vice, or law in order to its own pres.
ervation. The State is composed of
individuals. Whatever destroys the
individuals Of the State destroys the
State itself.
When man commits suicide he is
called, in the old law, FELo DE Sc,
which means felon concerning him
self. And by the old law of England
his goods were confscated. Nothing
is better settled than the principle
that no man has right to take his
own life. The courts have repeatedly
SO held, saying:
| II is a crime against population. 1t takes
away from every living man staff on which
he had right to lean, since 1t is neither
possible nor just for people to live indie
pendently of each other. And therefore
Voluntarily to kill another, even at his re-
quest, or to stand by, persuading him to take
his own life, which he does, is murder. So,
by the English common law, suicide Is felo-
ny.
/ quote again from a standard
author:
There are some injuries which no man has
right TO inflict con himself. Thus one can
not lawfully take away his own life and so,
If by his request another voluntarily takes
1t, the latter is guilty OF murder the same as
| If he had not been requested, and as
| the public defense requires the use of able
bodied men in battle, no man may innocent
ly main himself; and if another does it at
the request of the person receiving the IN
| jury, DObh aiS JIMMY 6uh's'
These are principles of law which
have been adjudicated by the courts,
and have received the assent of man.
kind for hundreds of years past.
They settle two propositions
which are as sound In morals
rs in a0, that no man belongs wholly
TO himself, but to others-to the
State; that, therefore, he has neither
the legal nor moral right TO disable
himself so that he cannot serve his
country and help his fellows much
less has he the right to destroy him
self, and thereby 10 utterly deprive
his associates of his services.
Next, that other persons cannot law
fully main or kill one, even with his
own consent and at his request. Let
us put this matter to n test to show
the illegality of self-murder or self
mayhem. Suppose my reader should
see a man in the act of shooting him.
self, and to prevent it should strike
with stick the hand holding the
pistol and knock il down so as to pre-
vent the suicide. Now suppose he who
has thus prevented the killing should
be indicted for an assault and battery
with a stick? Could anything be
done with himg No; because it was
a necessary act to prevent crime. If it
were lawful for one to kill or main
himself il would be unlawful to inter-
fere by violence to prevent it. But
this is too plain to be argued at all.
Now, advance, l sumbit fairly to two
other propositions.
l. The State has right to interfere
by positive enactment IN order to pre-
vent any man from destroying him.